ASS 3 CASE 2

[G.R. No. 85515. June 6, 1991.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. FLORENCIA MARASIGAN, and HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, Respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner. J. Renato V. Leviste for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE (P.D. NO. 1529); VIEW OF
RESPONDENT COURT THAT SECTION 13 OF R.A. NO. 26 APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN IMPLIEDLY AMENDED
BY SAID DECREE, TOTALLY UNFOUNDED. — We further find to be totally unfounded the view of the Court of
Appeals that Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 "appears to have been at least impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No.
1529." There is absolutely nothing in P.D. No. 1529 which intimates or suggests, indirectly or even remotely, an
intention to amend said Section 13. The Court of Appeals either misapprehended or read out of context that portion of
Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 reading as follows: ". . . that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to
confer jurisdiction upon the court." Worse, it committed a serious blunder when it used this clause to support its
proposition of implied amendment of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 by virtue of Section 110 of the Decree.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EFFECTS OF SAID VIEW. — The above view of the Court of Appeals negates one of the
principal purposes of the Decree, which is clearly expressed in its exordium, namely, to strengthen the Torrens
System through safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property. It opens wide the doors to fraud and
irregularities in land registration proceedings and in proceedings for the reconstitution of certificates of title. Judicial
notice may be taken of the fact that only very few have access to or could read the Official Gazette, which comes out
in few copies only per issue. If publication in the Official Gazette of the notice of hearing in both proceedings would be
sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, owners of both unregistered and registered lands may someday
painfully find out that others have certificates of title to their land because scheming parties had caused their
registration, or secured reconstituted certificates of title thereto and sold the property to third parties.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLICATION IF NOTICE IS PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL GAZETTE. — Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by
mailing and by posting. What it simply means is that in so far as publication is concerned, there is sufficient
compliance if the notice is published in the Official Gazette, although the law mandates that it be published "once in
the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines." However, publication in the
latter alone would not suffice. This is to accord primacy to the official publication. That such proviso was never meant
to dispense with the other modes of giving notice, which remain mandatory and jurisdictional, is obvious from Section
23 itself. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in detail the requirements of
mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include owners of adjoining
properties, and occupants of the land.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS; FUNCTION; LAPSES ON THE PART OF COURTS OR THEIR PERSONNEL, NOT A
REASON OR JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-OBSERVANCE OF LAWS. — The belabored argument of respondent
Court of Appeals that it would be unfair to impose upon the private respondent the duty to comply with the
requirement of service of notice because it was not through her fault that the original copy of the Transfer Certificate
of Title was lost is unacceptable since the law does not make any exception or exemptions; besides, it is, to say the
least, a ludicrous proposition. Equally unacceptable is the opinion of said Court that it was the duty of the trial court to
serve the required notices and private respondent should not be prejudiced if it failed to do so. It suggests, quite
unfortunately, and gives the wrong impression that mandatory requirements of notices may be dispensed with if the
failure to comply with them is attributable to the court. It likewise negates the principles of responsibility, integrity,
loyalty and efficiency which the Constitution directs public officials and employees to faithfully observe. We should
stress here that lapses on the part of courts or their personnel cannot be made a reason or a justification for non-
observance of laws. By the very nature of their functions, they should be the first to obey the laws.

DECISION

DAVIDE, JR., J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to set aside the Decision of 29 August 1988 1 of
the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15163 2 and its Resolution of 18 October 1988 3 which, respectively,
affirmed the Order of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Fourth Judicial Region, of 17 June
1987 4 granting the petition of private respondent for the reconstitution of the original and the owner’s duplicate
copies of a transfer certificate of title despite lack of service of notices to adjoining owners and the actual occupants
of the land, and denied petitioner’s motion for the reconsideration of the Decision. 5

The issue in this petition is whether notices to adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land are mandatory
and jurisdictional in judicial reconstitution of certificates of title.

On 4 November 1986 private respondent, claiming to be one of the heirs of Epifania Alcano, registered owner of a
parcel of land located in Canubing, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, containing an area of 33,294 square meters, and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 in the Registry of Deeds of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, filed a
petition for the reconstitution of "the original and duplicate copy (sic)" of the said Transfer Certificate of Title on the
basis of the owner’s duplicate copy. 6 She alleged therein that she is in possession "of the title subject matter of’ the
petition but she, however, did not allege the reason why she asked for the reconstitution.

In its Order of 4 November 1986 the trial court set the petition for hearing and required its publication in the Official
Gazette, which was done. Required notices, except to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land,
were given.

Upon prior authority of the trial court, reception of private respondent’s evidence was made by the OIC-Branch Clerk
of Court. Thereafter, on 17 June 1987, the trial court handed down an Order 7 which made the following findings of
facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it appears that she is one of the vendees of a certain parcel of land
situated in Malamig, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, containing an area of 33,294 square meters, embraced in and
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 and registered in the name of Epifania Alcano (Exh. "B") as
evidenced by a document of sale executed by the registered owner (Exh. "I"). The original copy of said title which
was usually kept in the Office of the Register of Deeds of this province was destroyed by reason of the fire which
razed to the ground the entire Capitol Building then housing said office on August 12,1977 (Exh. "C"). It appears
further that there are no co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, lessee’s duplicate copy of said certificate of title which had been
previously issued by the Register of Deeds of this province; that the petitioner is in actual possession of the area of
16,647 square meters which was sold to her and that she is benefitting from the produce of the improvements
existing on the area belonging to her."cralaw virtua1aw library

and disquisition:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Accordingly, finding the instant petition to be well-founded and there being no opposition to its approval, same is
hereby granted. The Register of Deeds of this province is hereby directed to reconstitute the original and the owner’s
duplicate copies of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-66062 in the name of the registered owners (sic) thirty days after
receipt of this Order by the Register of Deeds of this province and the Commissioner of the Land Registration
Commission, on the basis of the existing owner’s duplicate copy thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioner herein, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed from said Order to the Court of Appeals and
made the following assignment of errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACQUIRING JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT PETITION FOR
RECONSTITUTION OF THE ORIGINAL AND THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE COPIES OF TCT NO. T-66062
WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE ADJOINING OWNERS AND ACTUAL
OCCUPANTS OF THE LAND AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 26.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION." 8

The appeal was docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15163.

In support of the first assigned error, petitioner maintained that the requirement of Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 is not
only mandatory but jurisdictional as held in MWSS v. Sison, Et Al., 124 SCRA 394.
In its Decision of 29 August 1988 9 respondent Court of Appeals brushed aside the arguments of petitioner and held
that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 which "requires the sending out of notices to the adjoining owners and actual occupants
to vest jurisdiction," appears to have been "at least impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529" because it is
inconsistent with Section 23 of said Decree which provides that in original registration cases publication of notices of
initial hearing in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. Section 110 of said Decree
provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens Title. — Original copies of certificates of title lost or
destroyed in offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting such titles shall be
reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent
with this Decree." (Emphasis supplied)

2) The MWSS v. Sison case is not on all fours with the instant case for in the former both the original and the owner’s
duplicate copies of the certificate of title were claimed to be lost, unlike in the instant case where the duplicate copy is
intact; it was not shown that the original copy in the custody of the Register of Deeds was destroyed; the copies of the
titles alleged to have been lost were later found intact in the names of other persons; and, more importantly, the
Petition was not published in the Official Gazette but in the Manila Daily Bulletin, unlike in the instant case.

3) The duty to send notices to adjoining owners and actual occupants is imposed upon the court, not the party filing
the petition for reconstitution (herein private respondent); any lapse in regard thereto should not prejudice or injure
the latter.

4) Finally, in the instant case, the private respondent cannot be blamed for the loss of the original copy of the transfer
certificate of title; it was lost by reason of the burning of the Capitol Building; she should not, therefore, be put to
trouble, anxiety and expenses.

Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the Decision having been denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution of 18
October 1988, petitioner filed the instant petition on 22 December 1988 alleging therein that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"a. The respondent Honorable Court of Appeals acted contrary to law when it did not consider that the trial court is
without jurisdiction over the instant petition for reconstitution of the original owners (sic) duplicate copies of TCT No.
66062 as there is no requisite service of notice of hearing to the adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land as
required by Section 13 of R.A. No. 26;

b. The respondent Honorable Court of Appeals acted contrary to law in granting the petition for reconstitution of the
original and duplicate copies of TCT No. 66062."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Our resolution of 16 January 1989, 10 We required the respondents to comment on the petition. Private
respondent filed her comment on 10 February 1989. 11 She practically copied therein the questioned decision of
respondent Court of Appeals.

In Our resolution of 15 March 1989 We gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit
simultaneously their respective memoranda, which petitioner complied with on 3 July 1989 12 and private respondent
on 10 June 1989. 13

The petition is impressed with merit.

The questioned Decision of 29 August 1988 and the Resolution of 18 October 1988 of respondent Court of Appeals,
as well as the Order of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro of 17 June 1987, must be set aside.

Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 has not been altered, modified or amended. Since the requirement therein of service of
notice of the initial hearing to the adjoining owners and the actual occupants of the land was not complied with in this
case, the court below did not, therefore, acquire jurisdiction over the petition for the reconstitution of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 66062. Accordingly, the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in affirming the Order of the
trial court granting the petition and in holding that said Section 13 has been "at least impliedly amended" by Section
23 in relation to Section 110 of P.D. No. 1529 which took effect on 11 June 1978.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law
library

In Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 14 We ruled that the requirements of Section 12 and Section 13 of
R.A. No. 26 reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2 (c), 2 (d), 2 (e), 2 (f), 3 (c), 3 (e) and/or 3
(f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person
having an interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the following: (a) that the
owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-owner’s mortgagee’s or lessee’s
duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area
and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do not
belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e)
the names and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining
properties and of all persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the
property have been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the registration thereof has rot been accomplished,
as yet. All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for
reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be
made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2 (f) or 3 (f) of this Act, the petition shall be further
accompanied with a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same
property.

SEC. 13. The court shall cause a notice of petition, filed under the preceding section, to be published, at the expense
of the petition, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the
provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty
days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or
otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least thirty
days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or destroyed
certificates of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the name of the occupants or person in possession of
the property, the owner of the adjoining properties and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries
of the property, and the date on which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or
objection to the petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the
notice as directed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

are mandatory and jurisdictional and non-compliance therewith would render all proceedings utterly null and void. We
reiterated this rule in Tahanan Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Et. Al. 15 where, in respect particularly to the
required notice to an adjoining owner, We categorically declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The failure or omission to notify Tahanan as the owner, possessor or occupant of property adjacent to Lot 2 or as
claimant or person having interest, title or claim to a substantial portion (about 9 hectares more or less) of Lot 2, as
well as the failure or omission to post copies of the Notice of Hearing on the main entrance of the municipality (sic) on
which the land is situated, at the provincial building and at the municipal building thereat, are fatal to the acquisition
and exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court."cralaw virtua1aw library

In MWSS v. Sison Et. Al., supra., We further re-affirmed the foregoing doctrine:chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"The publication of the petition in two successive issues of the Official Gazette, the service of the notice of hearing to
the adjoining owners and actual occupants of the land, as well as the posting of the notices in the main entrance of
the provincial and municipal buildings where the property lies at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing, as
prescribed by Section 13 of the law, are mandatory and jurisdictional requisites."cralaw virtua1aw library

This re-affirmation is clear enough as to leave no room for any convoluted logic to support a sophistic distinction
between said case and the instant case and an implausible interpretation of the law.

We further find to be totally unfounded the view of the Court of Appeals that Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 "appears to
have been at least impliedly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1529." There is absolutely nothing in P.D. No. 1529
which intimates or suggests, indirectly or even remotely, an intention to amend said Section 13. The Court of Appeals
either misapprehended or read out of context that portion of Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 reading as
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court."cralaw
virtua1aw library

Worse, it committed a serious blunder when it used this clause to support its proposition of implied amendment of
Section 13 of R.A. No. 26 by virtue of Section 110 of the Decree.chanrobles law library

Section 23 of P.D. No. 1529 is entitled Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. and provides, inter alia,
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The public shall be given notice of initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication;
(2) mailing; and (3) posting."cralaw virtua1aw library

As regards publication, it specifically provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall
cause a notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to
confer jurisdiction upon the court. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

This proviso was never meant to dispense with the requirement of notice by mailing and by posting. What it simply
means is that in so far as publication is concerned, there is sufficient compliance if the notice is published in the
Official Gazette, although the law mandates that it be published "once in the Official Gazette and once in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines." However, publication in the latter alone would not suffice. This is
to accord primacy to the official publication.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

That such proviso was never meant to dispense with the other modes of giving notice, which remain mandatory and
jurisdictional, is obvious from Section 23 itself. If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not have
stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of
the Decree, include owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land.

The above view of the Court of Appeals negates one of the principal purposes of the Decree, which is clearly
expressed in its exordium, namely, to strengthen the Torrens System through safeguards to prevent anomalous titling
of real property. It opens wide the doors to fraud and irregularities in land registration proceedings and in proceedings
for the reconstitution of certificates of title. Judicial notice may be taken of the fact that only very few have access to
or could read the Official Gazette, which comes out in few copies only per issue. If publication in the Official Gazette
of the notice of hearing in both proceedings would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, owners of both
unregistered and registered lands may someday painfully find out that others have certificates of title to their land
because scheming parties had caused their registration, or secured reconstituted certificates of title thereto and sold
the property to third parties.

The belabored argument of respondent Court of Appeals that it would be unfair to impose upon the private
respondent the duty to comply with the requirement of service of notice because it was not through her fault that the
original copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title was lost is unacceptable since the law does not make any exception
or exemptions; besides, it is, to say the least, a ludicrous proposition. Equally unacceptable is the opinion of said
Court that it was the duty of the trial court to serve the required notices and private respondent should not be
prejudiced if it failed to do so. It suggests, quite unfortunately, and gives the wrong impression that mandatory
requirements of notices may be dispensed with if the failure to comply with them is attributable to the court. It likewise
negates the principles of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency which the Constitution directs public officials
and employees to faithfully observe. We should stress here that lapses on the part of courts or their personnel cannot
be made a reason or a justification for non-observance of laws. By the very nature of their functions, they should be
the first to obey the laws.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the instant petition and SETTING
ASIDE the Decision of 29 August 1988 and the Resolution of 18 October 1988 of respondent Court of Appeals in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 15163 and the Order of Branch No. 39 of the Regional Trial Court of Oriental Mindoro, Fourth
Judicial Region in Petition No. 11,456.

Costs against private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.